Disaggregating the Demand for Pesticides: Does it Matter?

This paper analyzes the demand of French farmers for pesticides by disaggregating among the three main categories of pesticides. We estimate the demand elasticities of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides with respect to pesticide expenditure, and also consider crop differentiation. We retain a Linear Approximated Almost Ideal Demand System specification. A Full‐Information Maximum Likelihood estimation procedure is used to deal with corner solution problems and censored data. The estimation is based on two cross‐sections covering pesticide use of three major crops cultivated in France in 2001 and 2006. Our results show that farmers' response to price variation is very low, especially for 2001. Furthermore, elasticities of pesticide expenditure are significantly different across categories: the highest levels are obtained for fungicides and the lowest ones for insecticides. Finally, we find higher own‐price elasticities for herbicides and fungicides than for insecticides, which are less frequently used.     

Downstream labeling and upstream price competition

This paper analyses the economic consequences of labeling in a setting with two vertically related markets. Labeling on the downstream market affects upstream price competition through two effects: a differentiation effect and a ranking effect. The magnitude of these two effects determines who in the supply chain will receive the benefits and who will bear the burden of labeling. For instance, whenever the ranking effect dominates the differentiation effect, the low-quality upstream firm loses from labeling while all downstream actors are individually better off. By decreasing the low-quality input price, the label acts as a subsidy and leads to an increase of the downstream market welfare. This analysis furthers our understanding of the economic consequences of labeling in cases like those of GMOs or restaurants.     

Is the Creation and Development of Biotech SMEs Localised? Conclusions Drawn from the French Case

The article examines the localisation effects within biotechnology, concentrating in particular on the French case. The paper has two strands of analysis. The first presents a detailed statistical survey of the French biotechnology sector. Among other things, the survey shows that a) localisation effects within France are strong, b) in terms of dependence on local cluster infrastructures (especially universities and related public research institutes), most firms progress from an entry stage in which they are very dependent on local cluster infrastructures, to a mature phase in which their networks become more national/international in focus and c) French firms can be grouped into four general types of firms, ranging from "type 1" growth oriented product firms, to "type 2" niche market players, "type 3" subsidiaries of larger firms, and "type 4" firms that have been acquired. Localisation effects differ across these firms, esp. across type 1 (international) and type 2 (very localised) firms. The second strand of analysis consists of a review of the localisation and related cluster literature, with implications drawn out for localisation and knowledge spillovers within biotech clusters. It examines the relative effects of scientific centres proximity and compares them to the public policy of start-up creation.